Messages - The ZAPINATOR

identity may be tied to ideas, but i've never made such a blanket statement such as ideas are not tied to identity. my point was simply that political ideology isn't necessary to give someone an identity. a political ideology that is constantly in flux does not necessarily mean that your identity as a whole is also constantly in flux.

the rest of this will remain unresolved. i can't convince you apparently, that many of these people are sheep, and your opinion will not change what i've seen empirically played out.

Yeah, I like leaving things unresolved.

Seriously, though, it's too bad that you take that view of people. You and Marilyn Manson would likely agree on this topic. What I find ironic is that said Marilyn is just busy making plenty more, and I am irritated by that fact. Tangent I know.

I don't know who either one of those gentlemen are, but I would assume Ricardo is more macho. In almost any situation, Ricardo will be more macho than the other guy. This is a rule of thumb that I have found to be quite helpful in life.

ZAP

If you hadn't asked in Spanish and made me decipher through transmogrification of my Romanian skills, I might have initially given you cool points. But since you asked... eh. Why not +.8? Congratulations.

i'm not just referring to conservatives. as i noted in a message above, i pointed out that many on both the democratic and republican sides vote pure party ticket. this is the traditional delineation of "conservative" vs. "liberal" even though it's obviously arbitrary and more complex than this.

i'm not telling anybody that they have to believe what i believe. i just think everyone needs to find a foundation for their beliefs that has been developed over time by themselves and with influence from others, rather than adopting a foundation that never sees a moment of self-criticism. obviously, there is not one moment in time in which everyone questions everything they believe. having an identity is not tied to your political ideology, or going back to what this discussion started out being, believing in the sanctity of life but approving of the death penalty.

Sorry, wrong, your identity is tied to your ideas. Your ideas include your political ideology. It's very fundamental. It's not all you are, but it IS a huge part of who you are, and I don't know how you could reasonably try to argue otherwise.

There is no one moment in time where people question everything they believe. But at different moments through time, most people ask all the existential questions. Why am I here? What is my purpose? And what does that mean? The answers they come to on these kinds of issues will likely determine the way they approach politics. Incidentally, the answers to these questions are also tied to their religion. That's why I don't think it's unreasonable to think that someone who votes for Candidate X, when their pastor said to vote for Candidate X, would have voted for Candidate X whether or not their pastor said anything.

A well-written addendum should address this issue. I wouldn't think it would be a huge problem, if you just decided your passion was law, and that you were more cut out for it than for your MA program.

I don't know who either one of those gentlemen are, but I would assume Ricardo is more macho. In almost any situation, Ricardo will be more macho than the other guy. This is a rule of thumb that I have found to be quite helpful in life.

perhaps they do line up, though the reason they line up could be due to what i have referred to, unquestioning acceptance.

ignore hitler then. my point still remains: people that don't question their assumptions are dangerous.

More dangerous are people that lull people into thinking "outside the box" and "enlightening them" into a new set of unquestioned assumptions. I'd say that you're probably arguing all this from a somewhat liberal point of view, trying to imply that people who vote conservative are mostly unquestioning fartknockers. I don't think this is any more true of conservatives than it is of liberals.

In response to what you said in the first paragraph above: Could be due to, but need not be, and I think you'd be hard pressed to prove it is in a majority of cases. Furthermore, I know very few people who have never reached a point in their lives where they question everything around them. They are the exception rather than the rule. Just because they ultimately may settle on comfortable explanations that satifsy their inquiries doesn't mean they don't question things to get to that point. But with all due respect, if you haven't made up your mind as to what you believe by your mid-30s or so, there's something wrong with you. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be open to change at all after that point, just that if you are to have any identity at all you need to eventually come to a set of ideas about the world around you that aren't continually in flux.